Testing Doctrines for Tanks - Which Ones Perform Better? Hoi4 Testing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2022
- Testing out different doctrines for tanks and how each of the match up. Should you be using Mobile Warfare for your tanks? That isn't as straight forward of an answer as you think.
Twitch.tv/71Cloak
hoi4disastersaves@gmail.com for disaster saves. Maybe I will do some. - Ігри
You aren’t the most popular Hoi4 UA-camr but you are the one who gives a lot of insight to mechanics ingame.
Feedback gaming can not exist without this dude
No NoFeedBackGaming and this guy's ingame knowledge would work so well and they might actually find some big exploits and hurt HOI4 developers.
Reality is a reality, that is not happening.
feedback spends a lot of time talking out his ass when he isn't citing someone else's experiments lol
MW still wins because of recovery. El alamein breakthrough brawl where there is a sweaty back and forth struggle between german and allied tanks is a great example: MW will gome on top vs SF due to double the recovery rate despite having arguably a bit worse stats.
And also, he mentions they're chock full of org and breakthrough- I use that in my designs, go really light on your mobile infantry support and use more tanks. That's where you'll get that 20% attack power difference from, because you won't need to put in so much infantry to keep your org up. Breakthrough also becomes a non-issue. Don't put any +breakthrough bonuses on your tank designs, you're already swimming in it. Focus on damage and keeping IC cost down.
@@Schmeethe88 More tanks fewer trucks/mech is definitely good with MW, but it makes your losses even higher. Equal org to SF/GB, MW will have way less HP because they don't need as many truck/mech battalions to get the same org. It also makes your tanks more expensive which means you're losing greater amounts of equipment that has a higher average cost.
I think that's a decent strat to win Alamein where that single tile is very valuable. For Ostfront, it's nice to have the higher org and lower losses that come from using more trucks/mech.
@@28lobster28 but it also jives well with MWs planning speed to crush quick and take small pockets. Yes you take more losses but the stats are phenomenal and you can sweep aside most anything, then with backup close in and capitalize on small gains. Don't ever overextend, and make use of that planning. Almost nothing can block your push.
@@Schmeethe88 Nothing can block your push except a counterattacking tank. The stats are great on offense but mech provides most of the defense for tank divs. If you're reducing HP and defense, it's a recipe for getting clicked back as soon as you take the tile you're attacking.
Just send 100 x 10 width Raj divisions and all those sweaty German tanks are gonna be stuck there all day, if you want to be extra sweaty, make SAF or NZ make some paratroopers and send there, then if Germany aint paying attention, LOL
Thats if the servers allow paratroopers and 10 width, otherwise just make TD stacks and naval invade with British marines behind them constantly just to annoy the shit out of them.
This is a good test of stats, but dont forget Mobile Warfare also gets more speed. Superior Firepower is probably best in most situations but Mobile Warfare can be really difficult to play against if the enemy is good at micro
Edit: Speed as well as reduced org loss when moving and faster planning bonus
And the amount of Breakthrough value. These three gives the mentality of the doctrine. Smaller, faster, but sturdier divisions to break the defense and infiltrate to create pockets, you're intending not to kill the enemy with tanks, but cut their supply lines and escape paths so the remaining units can focus on that part like artillery pieces, CAS, etc. Also, if the opposing force is weaker, you're obliged to overrun them, which is the hidden idea of MW's first 3 tactics, the tactic speed bonus is your hidden killer stat, in the case of you broke enemy org and force them to retreat. This doctrine wants all of your attention.
In the same mindset, we can summarize the other three like this: SP focuses on dealing damage directly, you want to hit enemy NOW to kill them. GBP is about preparing for the big march that's unstoppable. MA is about crisis management, resisting and ambushing until you can create the counter offence chance. Really fitting to the countries that used by. Except Germany, they actually act more like SP irl than MW.
Good testing as always, though I think the results skew against MW because of your tank design and template. You have a lot of extra breakthrough that you could replace for more attack via additional machine guns and additional TDs.
I don't understand who is the best breaktrough or attack?
@@alessandrocallegari6075 breakthrough lets you attack for longer, attack kills the enemy faster
@@alessandrocallegari6075 breakthrough is the counterpart to defense for attackers, and is harder to come by, being specific to tanks (with lots of breakthrough) and moto/mech (not so much breakthrough or attack, but lots of HP and Org). Breakthrough is good, but gives diminishing returns. Attack is important as well, but oftentimes sacrifices other stats like HP, Org, and Breakthrough for higher numbers.
@@alessandrocallegari6075 annoying answer but both are the best, FOR ATTACKING. Breakthrough value improves your defensive stat for your attacking force, against enemy attack value (which has a long calculation formule that it deserves its own video imo), the higher it is, the less attack will hit the division. Less hit means less damage taken, but that stat is also depending on many factors like your armor value, your defense/Breakthrough modifiers, and most importantly, division strength aka how many equipment and manpower your division still have.
Attack is simpler and easier to increase just put more damaging units, aka tanks in this case (also for the Breakthrough, but a bit more important for here). Tanks have their own artillery piece in the terms of their gun in their turret the better stat that gun has, the more attack value the division brings (also modifiers as well, but they're easier to calculate unlike Breakthrough which gets bonus from defense bonuses as well).
You need to calculate accurately what your division needs; in MW's case, they're already getting huge breakthrough bonuses so they need better guns and armor (or speed depending on your enemy's or your tanks' weight (aka light med heavy), and you can afford to put more tanks due to organization bonuses they get (it's a double edged sword though).
In attacking a minor, you need speed and Breakthrough more than attack and armor because you can deal with their divisions through overrunning them, but against major like US and Russia, you may slow down and focus more on attack and armor values and look for ways to increase them without compromising your speed and organization, which MW helps with their bonuses so you can afford more than other, in theory.
You are forgetting a few things in your conclusion.
1 MWF gives a lot of recovery rate and 10% speed.
2 Since MWF gives a lot of breakthrough, you use different tank design/division template. Same for GBP. In fact, you are probably wasting a lot of breakthrough in those battles. Battles in hard terrain would be much more difficult for SFP and deep battle.
3 A battle that lasts longer gives more time to CAS to do damage. If you have air superiority, MWF is better.
4 GBP can work for tanks for minors. You need to be able to spam staff office plan to get the planning. It is a special gamestyle though so not recommended for beginners.
MWF, SFP and GBP work for tanks (deep battle is a joke sorry). MWF is the easiest to use because of the recovery rate. You will struggle to get enough breakthrough to push forests/cities with SFP. GBP is not viable for majors and difficult to play well. That is why MWF is played so much.
dont bother mimile, he thinks that planing bonus on naval invasion is an exploit, he is welcome to try to try is tank in a real barb against a MW tank and see how it goes
Also, the +20% HA from SF stacks additively with the +30% HA bonus from AT techs for TDs. End result is that SF TDs only have 15% more HA than MW TDs.
The inherent caveat with "fair" doctrine testing is that different doctrines may see different templates and designs as optimal. You still use the same tanks for equal testing, and extrapolate possible differences in templates from those results, not the other way around.
@@nickolasdufresne6036 Planning Bonus on Naval Invasions without Tip of the Spear Army Spirit is an exploit.
@@cm01 Fair, but he doesn't add that nuance in the video. He makes claims that SF might be worth trying but a deeper analysis would show it's very much still inferior.
Thanks for the test! Very interesting. One of the big advantages of MW is not present here - breakthroughs. If you manage to punch a hole in the enemy lines, MW is far superior to anything else in exploiting that gap because of high org and recovery rates. Encirclements are easier.
I guess you are a bit slower without MW. Still doesn't matter that much
@@joda7129 slightly disagree. MW's speed bonus may not be much in hindsight, but if you have the breakthrough tactic and have fast tank divisions, your combat fatality is sky rockets due to overrun mechanic. For that, you need those breakthrough stats, so that you can focus more on attack values to break division org.
So the people saying MA is bad, you guys are ignoring the beauty of the doctrine. Not only the supply usage being less, it also give breakthrough to all units and less org loss per unit. It's a doctrine tailor suited to the Soviet Union because it needs infantry, it needs armor and motor units. It requires a different style of play. It gives you defense and entrenchment to hold positions like you're using GBP but the breakthrough requires a mix of infantry and tanks. I generally use shock armies that have more artillery with majority infantry (10/2 or 10/3). You hit them with the shock armies first because of the 10% breakthrough for infantry and then slam them with tanks with motorized divisions behind them. You keep using the tanks to push forward, with the motor infantry serving as support but also to push further than the tanks can go. Make use of the planning bonuses, and conduct small operations often. It's biggest weakness is you can just click and order units to do places for the best results, unless it's a unique opportunity where it's 1-2 units against many. Use the max planning to your advantage.
It's a rigid style of play, it's not as flexible as SFP or MW, it's definitely better at defense and is meant to buy you time while you set up operations as the Soviets or Chinese. It helps to have field hospitals, it may sound weird but when you get them up to tier 3-4 the numbers you see lost may seem big, but the actual losses decrease significantly. According to the battle records, I'd take some heavy losses here or there. One battle saw me losing 1200 against nothing, but despite being told I had lost 1.2 million men in the top left part of the screen, total losses for the war was 300,000. Preserve manpower, build forces up, hit across wide fronts and AA support (as a standard battalion in Infantry later is good because of the width decrease for inf, but support company also works and is ideal early on for AT and AA.) You'll be a LOT harder to kill, and having the doctrine and engineers (higher tier preferably) stacking will make you damn near impossible to dislodge unless the person concentrates armor in a small section. In that case, have tank armies moving around to help breakthroughs and to counter-attack enemy armor but cutting it off.
You're supposed to pin enemy units down to keep windows of opportunity open, which is more losses but also more encirclements.
Huge fan of these videos. A lot of videos just kinda say "I assume you don't want to see the numbers" and skip to a generalist best result. I love the granularity here!
"Mass assault countries don't face Grand battleplan countries"
Soviets usually at least the AI goes MA, Finland going GBP.
Stalin in shambles.
Awesome testing. What do you think about tactical withdrawal as a counter to breakthrough? Do you think the forced separate tactics from it would be a good counter overall?
It depends on the enemy doctrine. MW would love such withdrawal due to their organization value is hard to tank, which allow their speed to shine.
Historically, Germany mainly tried to win it's battles through maneuver, while many of the allies relied more on firepower. I think the default doctrines do reflect the historical trends of the majors.
Can you make a video on recognizance, I'm curious how valuable it actually is since there is a spirit of division command dedicated to it, also there is the +25% recon while entrenched from the ambusher general trait. I'm just curious if playing a game where you try to max out recognizance would even have any impact.
I believe he has (or it was Feedback Gaming).
They basically conclude it's almost worthless, and definitely a net negative in the grand scheme of things.
Recon is worthless
from FeedbackGaming's tests, recon is only useful when you are on the defence, otherwise it's pretty useless and there are many better support companies to spend your support equipment / IC on
Normally, recon should be essential to gather information for both offence and defence, but reconnaissance only gives "chance to counter enemy tactics" which is worthless in the grand scheme of warfare. But you need recon battalions for their terrain bonuses, not for their reconnaissance in the game.
Fascinating! Good video.
I always wondered why I heard claims about superior fire power being better for tanks and such.
Either way, I would have another question concerning tank destroyers.
All of them.
Light, medium, heavy. What are good production costs for them compared to stats? At which point would it be more beneficial to take a fixed turret?
Don't know about the tank variants but doctrine wise, SF is massively overrated. Don't get me wrong, it IS powerful, but it really depends on the country your playing and the situations you'll find yourself in.
People always claim that SF is the best because it is the easiest to go with and it's hard to make mistakes. SF does buff soft attack, but that's pretty much it. GBP left with full planning and a general with nice planning stats provides about the same soft attack as SF does, but also the same bonus to breakthrough and hard attack. GBP left also provides 20% breakthrough on your entire army. But it takes time to learn how to handle GBP, you need to prepare defensive lines behind the lines and take movement bonuses and terrain and so on into account.
Same with MW, if you can produce enough tanks that's great, extremely powerful, but if you don't know how supply range and supply grace works or if you don't understand attrition or initiative or believe that when the template says 12 kmh you'll get 12 kmh everywhere then you'll probably just waste a lot of production power and waste much potential.
SF just goes BOOM and yes that's powerful, but once you get encircled by MW or overwhelmed by MA or overrun by a nicely planned offense by GBP, it's over.
@@koalakoala2344 For the case of MW and speed. It's actually essential to calculate what you will need from your division prior to war. Are you attacking a minor? Stack speed and breakthrough and abuse overrun mechanic. You won't reach 12km/h, but what you need that speed, is for division tactic speed. Breakthrough tactic gives massive bonus to that so your division when attacking the enemy province, they get there faster than other divisions and on victory possibly overrun them in that instance, if not race them for the next province to overrun.
attacking belgium on their core territory- wow, what a genius this guy is.
Thank you
Now I wonder what's the best doctrine for a space marine type of build where you would have like a medium tank support company + inf + art
SFP. Your supermarine divisions are there to KILL the defending units so you want more Soft Attack and Hard Attack but less speed while keeping high armor and breakthrough. Best way to do it imo is using normal INF and cheap heavy tanks. Their hardness and Armor value is the most important to you in this case, so you just need to balance their attack stat to your industrial capacity.
Could you please explain the impact of armor and piercing on ships?
interesting results... I wonder if these results could point towards it being a good idea for mass assault players to build heavy tank divisions, or mixed heavy tank/space marine divisions, for their armor usage. Sure, they'll wind up with less functional divisions, but it may allow them to get that limited number of 'push' units.
thanks chad
I have a question how to get the high velocity canon II, I already research anti-tank 2 but can not find it
They moved it a couple times. You get it in the 41 tech I think
If you're defending with tanks you're not using them right. Use your tanks to push and if there's a counterattack bring in infantry with anti-tank.
how did the night attack bonus from grand battleplan stack up to other doctrines?
He went left GBP. Not right
@@joda7129 thats why im asking
On infantry right and left stack up quite well and are quite even because both sides give bonuses. On tanks, the left side gives a lot more bonuses plus the best tank tactic in the game. If you are going to do tanks with GBP I would always go right.
Just about every conclusion here is wrong. If you‘ve once had the joy of doing a superior firepower tank push, you notice that they have barely any org regain. So once you get „clicked“ as in attacked and deorged, it’s very likely that you get pushed back a couple of tiles, if not overrun. On the other hand any advance you can make is slow. No encirclements.
I made the same mistake of thinking equipment comparisons equal best doctrine. It doesn’t. GBP obviously beats everything when you have a static front with time to plan and no worries about counterattacks.
For flame tank you should have different builds for different doctrines, because the doctrine bonuses help flame tanks disproportionately more than other tanks. If you use superior firepower then the flame tank should stack soft attack, and if you use mobile warfare the flame tank should be stacking breakthrough.
why should you stuck stats that doctrine giving you, arent you need opposite ?
@@boynistone690 because stacking bonuses is better. SF flametank gets enough bonuses to soft attack to just destroy the unit. Mw does the same for breakthough so you can annihilate the org of a defending division.
Atleast i think that's how this work.
Its better to just stack your advantages then prop up your weaknesses in hoi4
@@bramschoenmakers5071 but that dude wrote that you need more breaktrought for flame tank for MW?
@@boynistone690 flame tanks have about 30% base stats but still get the full bonus from doctrines. For example going superior firepower gives you +60% support company soft attack, that's a total of 90% which is literally tripling soft attack. You can also think of it as getting that same 60% bonus while only paying 15 tanks worth of extra IC instead of 50. This should work with recon light tanks as well but I haven't really tried.
So playing as a soviet look for tank battles even if u lose battle bcz eventually they will lose more tanks?
don't most MW players use a higher proportion of TDs in their divisions to boost hard attack? that could help resolve the battles quicker and lose less IC.
Most people don't even use their armor divisions to engage enemy tanks. I stack soft attack on armored divisions, and only build a few specialized hard attack divisions to deal with enemy tanks
@@javierperalta7648 you guys are talking MP (Taylor) vs SP (Javier)
@@oldpersonmc18yearold46 not sure, if you go for pure at tanks, you might have problems dealing with good at infantry
@@Omen09 to some degree yes but not a huge one. also now that armor was buffed TDs are more common and the ratio of TDs to tanks can easily be adjusted if the enemy makes AT. but AT inf doesn’t pierce as often now so it’s pretty weak
The inherent caveat with "fair" doctrine testing is that different doctrines may see different templates and designs as optimal. You still use the same tanks for equal testing, and extrapolate possible differences in templates from those results, not the other way around.
Hey i think camouflage expert trait doesnt work could you try it
What about tanks attacking defensive motorised at divisions? I usually use grand plan + motorised defence divs to turtle as france, but maybe mobile is better because of tons of org
Motorized battalions are kinda worthless in defense, their only difference from usual defensive INF is their speed, without doctrines, and even then it's shady to use motorized on defensive purposes. Imo you would have better off with INF+Heavy AT combination for defense when it comes to it.
@@gildedphoenix motorised divs can cycle much faster than inf, have much higher org mith mobile wargare, also motorised at gets massive penning bonuses over inf at. And not every server allows for spacemarine divisions
@@tedarcher9120 like I said, it's shady to use them like that due to IC cost per battalion. INF are the main defensive units because they use less equipment for the same HP value. In defending, you're less worried about organization than HP, not to mention, you can utilize a cheap Light Tank AT battalion and get more bonuses. Would be comparable or little bit more IC cost compared to Motorized AT, but with worthwhile stats.
@@gildedphoenix it would be way more ic and way less piercing. You need medium tank destroyers upgraded to match mot at at least. And mot inf is cheaper than you think, the main problem is fuel consumption. In defence, you are very worried about your division org and hp, because it lets you cycle much longer
Were tactics turned off?
This fucking underrated content man
research_on_icon_click still works with doctrines and you only have to type in once, instead of giving yourself army xp multiple times
It will also give you multiple exclusive doctrines. It's really dangerous to do.
@@71Cloak last time I checked (about three months ago) if you started from the first doctrine it swapped over, instead of researching both
what if you cant bulid up battle plan ? cuz of spies of youre enemy?
huh, that's an interesting topic for a video
then you don't get as much planning and entrenchment bonus. But GBP works well for Soviet Union because of their nutty counter intelligence.
They only usually have spies in your capital region so that really only effects like France
Is MW also great because you unlock breakthrough tactics?
You unlock Breakthrough in every doctrine they tested
MW is great because the raw breakthrough bonus. That stat allows you to take more offensive equipment to maximize efficiency. SFP does it reverse, and GBP makes all that up through planning bonuses.
This guy deserves more views
GBP ftw.
I don't own or play Hearts of Iron and will never buy it. I don't know why I watch your videos...
Make video how to beat Dankus ZSRR
ill just stick to my cas spam
man i really like your videos but i don't understand what do you want to get with the test?
all the tanks are the same which i think is an easy way. every doctrine use its own tank for example modern warfare gets a lot of breakthrough so most players don't put radio and so on. and the same goes with templets
also did you know that Belgium's tanks get extra stats because you are attacking on core territory so you indirectly buffed grand battleplan ?
In another reply he mentioned that Belgium has 49% war support so it doesn’t change anything
Radio 3 is expensive but Radio 2 is very worthwhile.
if you have a doctrine that gives bonuses to break through, you want to use stuff that increase breakthrough to get the most out of your bonuses.
Why wouldn't most players put radio on if they are using Mobile warfare.
@@joda7129 Because MW already gives them a lot of breakthrough so getting a different module would be more worthwhile
Am I insane? I cant make an armored recon company. I see the motorized and the light armored car variants, but no tank version
Do you actually have a light tank design to add. It's not going to show up if you don't have light tanks.
@@71Cloak Yeah, i even loaded into a single player game and made a light tank with each type of turret and weapon option, still no way of adding light tank recon. I know im not insane, the light tank recon does exist, but am I just blind 😂
@@xdeepxfreezex2621 What country were you playing as? Does that country start with recon companies unlocked? Did the division you wanted to add recon to already have a recon company? If the division already has moto/cav recon, you have to remove that to add light armored recon.
@@28lobster28 Yeah I did the research on icon clicked and did all the tank stuff as well as all the support company stuff. Ive tried it as the germans, americans and romanians. Ive added other recon fine. Tried to remove the recons then looked. Didnt see the option for light tank recon, even though i had thousands of different light tanks made just to try to get one of the types into it as recon. I tried it with the usual mod we play Road to 56 RP by tomatoez and without any mods. I have to be missing something cause i dont see the option in the drop down list
@@xdeepxfreezex2621 Do you have La Resistance? I think the separate types of recon companies were added then, might be a sneaky DLC feature. Otherwise I have no idea
Usually when you defend with tanks its on forrest or hill tiles. On planes this comparison is useless, of course breakthrough wins against low defence div
I usually take superior firepower and use self propelled artillery to get very high soft attack. IMO it's better than the extra breakthrough from Mobile Warfare
Can you give me an example template so I can play around with the idea?
@@antonseoane9092 7 Medium tank, 7 mec/mot, and 2 medium self propelled artillery. That's the template I use most of the time. I also add some heavy tanks for More armor if I can afford it. For support, signal and logistics
some of you mfs have never played multiplayer and it shows
@@cm01 you damn right and I don't intend to
@@antonseoane9092 thats fair enough but its not like doctrine even matters for tanks in singleplayer. if you have tanks and fuel you're gonna win.
If u wanna play with Tank Division's, especialy in SP.
SF is overall better inmo. because u fight mostly Infantry.
Iam maybe SF biased, but even in MP your Tank Division's fight mostly Infantry.
And MW just dosent do much for your Infantry Divisions, thats why i personly dont like it as much, even as Germany.
Well, that's because actual German tactic is not designed for MW but SF(Airland Battle), and playing Germany with MW is has to do with "haha Blitzkrieg go brrr" idea.
However, I wonder how would "Mech INF-only Germany" would fare.
why are you using this template for the testing
He explained it in the video.
Mobile Warfare all the way baby. Need to steamroll the soviets.
Dissapointing to see yet another bashing of Mobile Warfare. One needs to take into account that lots of ORG in Mobile warfare basically allows you to create best tank divisions in game.
The reason is that you can use more tanks and less trucks. so Mobile Warfare costs more IC but produces superior divisions.
I was hoping that you would show how does Superior Firepower division compare to Mobile Warfare division if both have same org. (having templates adjusted for it)
There is no such thing as "too much ORG". There is only "too much ORG relative to your HP". Swapping HP for more Attack and possibly even more Breakthrough is a great way to take heavier losses during a battle. That wouldn't really change the result of the testing that much because your take more damage while you do more damage.
What you actually want to do with MW is trade your Breakthrough for Attack/piercing . There is such a thing as too much breakthrough. That means you trade your Tanks for SPGs to increase your attack and piercing and this can even improve your ORG/HP ratio.
@@SuperThest How do you know when you have enough Breakthrough?
Since Belgium is being attacked in Belgium. They get bonus attack and defence for core territory. Wouldn't that screw the results?
no they have 49% ws support.
49 war support
man this is paper material. Good Work thank you.
I think GB still sucks for tanks. You usually don't have the time to build up max planning bonus for every situation.
Just staff office plan.
Staff office plan while in a forest or mountain tile. You just have to be more smart about positioning with GBP
Dont the tests get mildly innaccurate since you use franco british wars, france gets (like every country) increased ATT and DEF on core territory
Inly if they have more than 50 war support. I know how to do a test.
@@coosmictrooper3646 It's an example, not a tutorial.
@@coosmictrooper3646 Well if he used different templates/designs per doctrine that could lead to a way way longer video showing them all and could be argued much more.
@@coosmictrooper3646 Well if you wanted a proper example or test you can donate to his PayPal or patreon, if he has one.
I'm sure he could put more effort and properness in his video if he was being properly payed for his video.
@@coosmictrooper3646 Just admit that you want him to do this test the way that "you" want it done instead of his way.
After all he himself could be learning something new from these tests over time and may develop the proper skills to present his findings.
Last time i checked the dictionary, presenter and tester are 2 separate words with separate meanings and that doesn't account if he is good at what he does.
People make mistakes and not everybody is a nit picker or being aided by a personality disorder in there judgement, whats right for you isn't necessarily right for him.
Give the guy a chance, it's obvious that he isn't perfect at presenting his findings or testing every possible solution.
Furthermore this could be a side project of his that he does in his time off while he could be working 5 days a week (assuming).
Now his finances were worth mentioning because you wanted a tailored experience video, full quality, every possible outcome/solution, no spread of misinformation, properness.
If you want quality, get used to paying for it and not expect it for free in the form of a UA-cam video.
The fact that he doesn't have any links to a PayPal or patreon suggests that he doesn't want donations just yet or your assumption that he is still learning about the game and is unaware of the major factors that could skew the outcome of the test.
And if your that obsessed about it being 99.99% correct then go test it yourself and post a video about it.
informative but not as scientific as i would like.
Love to see the MW fanboys crying in the comments.